Boring stuff, right? But wherever booze is there’s someone looking to make money from it, someone wanting to tax it, and someone looking to find ways they can sell more of it.
Yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald carried a story about calls from the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia (DSICA) to change the way alcohol is taxed — which would see ciders attracting a higher tax rate than they do now. Of course, Cider Australia — who’s members include companies like Fosters — is none too happy about that. But the DSICA argues that there isn’t any reason why ciders should be treated differently to pre-mixed RTD’s, given they’re roughly the same alcoholic strength. Cider Australia, for its part, says that cider is an agricultural product much like wine.
Either way, whenever there’s a change in the way things are taxed there’s winners and losers. Which way do you think the government should go, and should booze attract a more or less flat tax based on alcoholic volume, or should there be exceptions designed to promote different sectors?
